Moisture sensitive items such as pharmaceuticals, food items, confections, tobacco products and test strips are often provided in resealable, moisture-tight containers. Such containers typically include a container body having an interior portion and an opening, and a cap that sealably engages the container body to cover the opening. Such containers are provided with a seal and a closure mechanism, and in some cases may include a child resistant closure mechanism, such as that disclosed in WO 02/16218, which is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
The child resistant closure mechanism disclosed in WO 02/16218 includes a pliable “spacer” (as the component is named in that publication), which is synonymous with a “guard” (as the component is named herein), positioned on the outer surface of the container. When the cap is in the closed position, the spacer is under the thumb tab. In one embodiment, when the cap is in the closed position, the spacer prevents a user from contacting the underside of the thumb tab with his or her finger, effectively prohibiting the opening of the container. However, the spacer is movable inwardly in the direction of the container when a sufficient inward force is applied to it. Inward movement of the spacer permits the holder of the container to access the underside of the thumb tab so an upward force can be applied to it, thereby opening the container.
In one embodiment, the outer-most surface of the spacer disclosed in WO 02/16218 is about 6 mm to 8 mm from an outer surface of the side wall of the container body. While the child resistant functionality of such an embodiment is good, for some applications, a spacer or guard with a smaller profile is preferred. In the art, the difference of even one or two millimeters between guard profiles can make the difference between a desirable design and an undesirable design, for some applications. For example, in certain applications, a spacer or guard having an outer-most surface that is about 2 mm to 4 mm, or less, from an outer surface of the side wall of the container body, is desired. The smaller profile allows for more convenient and less conspicuous storage, e.g., in one's pocket. However, the inventors have found that as the profile of the guard is reduced, the functionality of the child resistant closure may be adversely affected. Accordingly, there is a need for a child resistant closure having a small profile guard without a substantial corresponding loss of child resistant closure functionality.
Seals known in the art often include abutting surfaces on the cap and container body, which may be in the form of, for example, a protrusion on one of the cap or container body that is received by a groove on the other of the cap or container body. Similarly, closure mechanisms often include a protrusion on one of the cap and container body that is received by a groove on the other of the cap and container body, in order to form an interlocking relationship that retains the cap in place on the container body. Due to the similarity in structure of these common configurations, the seal and closure mechanism are often combined in a single structure including the above-mentioned protrusion and groove. This is potentially limiting to the integrity of both the seal and the closure mechanism, as different dimensions and constructions may be desirable for each of these components. For example, to create an effective seal, it may be desirable to form the outer dimensions of the cap as slightly larger than the inner dimensions of the container opening that receives a portion of the cap, in order to create an interference fit and in turn a tight seal. This can be problematic with respect to a closure mechanism, as it may cause deformation of the container body such that the closure mechanism portion thereof does not sufficiently engage the closure mechanism portion of the cap. Accordingly, a need exists for a container having a closure mechanism and seal that function independently of each other, such that varying the construction of one in order to maximize effectiveness does not negatively impact the effectiveness of the other.